Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kepner-Tregoe

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kepner-Tregoe

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about company which does not seem to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. All references in the article are either primary or listing type, my searches have only brought up press releases by the company I could not find any significant coverage by independent reliable sources. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this better satisfies the companies notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot imagine why delete this article. I vote to keep it, and I (and people like me) will over time add depth add independent/fair critiques of KepnerTregoe(KT). KT is a standard piece of an art/science (root cause analysis) in a constant state of development at present. It is a household name among practitioners and just needs a year or two more to get solidified in the article here from non-company-based critques, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2016‎

Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I found three sources that satisfy WP:RS, WP:GNG, and (maybe) WP:CORPDEPTH - [1], [2], and [3]. But what I'm not seeing is significant coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, and I'm not seeing any (maybe one, listed here) article that covers the company itself in-depth (also required for WP:GNG). Hence, I am voting delete (WP:TOOSOON?) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: you realize all three of the sources you linked are actually press releases by the company in question? Press releases are not considered reliable. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McMatter - HA! Well... even more of a reason to delete the article :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.